Appropriations Committee advances annual water construction omnibus bill, debates Alkali Creek reversion and LaPrelle funding

The Appropriations Committee advanced the Legislature’s annual omnibus water construction bill and debated major project funding decisions, including a $60 million allocation for the LaPrelle Dam project and the reversion of $50 million from the Alkali Creek project to cover part of that cost. Committee members also discussed easement delays, a two‑phase preconstruction/construction funding approach, and a proposal to move the Board of Control’s annual budget to the general fund.

Senator Steinmetz, introducing the measure as the annual omnibus water construction bill, told members the bill consolidates numerous water development appropriations and uses severance tax revenues within the statutory cap. He said the accounts are funded through the severance tax “under the cap of the 155,000,000” and that 12% of those collections goes into water accounts 1, 2 and 3. Steinmetz also described two extraordinary appropriations this year: $20,000,000 from the rainy day account (LSRA) for the Goshen irrigation tunnels and a $60,000,000 allocation for the LaPrelle Dam project made up of a $50,000,000 reversion from the Alkali Creek project plus $10,000,000 from LSRA.

Jason Mead, director of the Water Development Office, briefed the committee on project lists and line‑item amounts. Mead described account 1 new development municipal projects totaling $4,386,200 and account 2 rehabilitation and small water projects totaling $17,094,331. He also outlined a policy shift to split funding into preconstruction (design, permitting, easements) and construction phases to avoid allocating full construction dollars to projects that cannot obtain easements or permits in a timely manner. Mead said that approach does not necessarily save program dollars but allows funds to move to ready projects rather than sit unused on delayed projects.

Committee members raised concerns about signaling and local buy‑in when funds are reallocated. Senator Larson and others warned that diverting money from Alkali Creek could send a “bad signal” to landowners and easement negotiators and urged keeping the project viable. Senator Cooper described Alkali Creek as a large irrigation project that serves roughly 14,000 acres and said keeping water in Wyoming is a priority. Senator Lawson offered an amendment to restore $50,000,000 to Alkali Creek funding while retaining LaPrelle’s $60,000,000; the amendment drew discussion about federal funds and project readiness.

A separate budget request drew attention: committee members and the bill sponsor asked that the Board of Control be moved from the water development account to the state engineer’s budget on the general fund to avoid drawing roughly $9 million per year from water project monies. Steinmetz said the board is constitutionally constructed and “should be on the general fund under the state engineer's budget.”

After discussion and committee amendments, the committee recorded a roll call vote on the water bill as amended. The transcript shows the roll call recorded 4 ayes and 1 absent (Senator Driscoll excused); the committee announced “do pass amended.”